Martin Turgeon
> Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 8:54 AM
> To: Max Laier
> Cc: freebsd-pf@freebsd.org
> Subject: Re: PF in kernel or as a module
>
>
>Max Laier a écrit :
>
> On Tuesday 23 January 2007 22:57, Martin Turgeon wrote:
>
>
> I would like to start a de
On 12/23/-58 20:59, Kevin K. wrote:
> I'm curious if there has been some benchmarking done to compare the two
> methods of enabling PF.
>
> The security debate could be argued to be circumstantial, but I'd like to
> hear from people who use it in production via loaded module, as my only
> experien
the kernel.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Martin Turgeon
Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 8:54 AM
To: Max Laier
Cc: freebsd-pf@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: PF in kernel or as a module
Max Laier a écrit :
On Tuesday 23 January 2007 22:57, Mart
Max Laier a écrit :
On Tuesday 23 January 2007 22:57, Martin Turgeon wrote:
I would like to start a debate on this subject. Which method of
enabling PF is the more secure (buffer overflow for example), the
fastest, the most stable, etc. I searched the web for some info but
without result.
On Tuesday 23 January 2007 22:57, Martin Turgeon wrote:
> I would like to start a debate on this subject. Which method of
> enabling PF is the more secure (buffer overflow for example), the
> fastest, the most stable, etc. I searched the web for some info but
> without result. So I would like to kn
> Hi all!
>
> I would like to start a debate on this subject. Which method of
> enabling
> PF is the more secure (buffer overflow for example), the fastest, the
> most stable, etc. I searched the web for some info but without result.
> So I would like to know your opinion on the pros and cons of e
